"Heated Exchange!"

[Boob-No-More]

Teams are made from individuals and you need to look at the number of statistics and see how the individual influences the team and the other way around. Statistics take a lot of individual occurrences that look "random" in isolation - and given a large sample size - the math shows you that you can come to some conclusion with a "degree of confidence" (another way to say "margin of error"). The data we have on Miller is from a large sample size, 2 and a half years now - he is a 50% win% guy. At this point - there is more to the data than just a random collection of facts. You have to start asking more questions. Given that we have 11 years of data on Andre Miller - and his teams never won 50 games, never got out of the first round and never dominated - there is a very good chance that Andre Miller's influence on team wins is over-rated, given his shining individual stats.

Given that most of the teams Andre Miller joined were lottery teams before he got there, a 50% career win% is actually pretty damn good. Blaming Miller for his teams never winning 50 games is misguided - especially after you just got done lecturing me on how basketball is a team sport. You surround a superstar (like Kobe Bryant) with crappy teammates and his team is in the lottery - and Andre Miller isn't a superstar, just a solid, above average starting PG - which is what he's been his entire 11-year NBA career.

You want to talk wins and losses, go back and look at the teams Andre Miller has played on. Look at their records before and after he joined. In most cases, the team won more games, in some cases a LOT more games, after adding Miller. Cleveland improved by 10 wins Andre Miller's rookie year. Denver went from 17 wins to 43 (but admittedly they also added a pretty good rookie in Carmelo Anthony). They won 49 games the next year, but regressed to 44 wins the year after that when they swapped Miller for Iverson.

Just look at what happened in Philadelhia after Miller arrived. Prior to acquiring Andre Miller, the 76ers were the worst team in the league with a 6-19 recored and had recently come off a 12-game losing streak. After adding Miller they went 29-28 the rest of the way and were actually in contention for a play-off spot. That was an amazing tunraround for a team that traded away their best player, and league's second leading scorer, for Andre Miller in what was considered nothing more than a salary dump at the time of the trade. Yet, the team went from playing 0.240 ball to playing 0.510 ball after adding Andre Miller. Please explain to me again how Andre Miller's individual production does nothing to help his team win.

Looking at the large sample size, including last year and the year before - the data shows that Roy is a bit higher. But, if you look at Blake - you will see that his high win% is no fluke, he had high win% in Denver as well. Something Blake does on the court translates to wins, despite his rather mediocre individual stats.

That "something" Blake does is benefit from playing big minutes with his team's best players. How can you not see something that blatantly obvious. Hell, I'd probably have a pretty high win% if I got to play next to Melo, Iverson (when still in his prime), Roy, Aldridge, Oden, etc. Give me a break. Steve Blake isn't the reason his teams win, he's a classic coattail rider who benefits from being on the court with great players. It's as simple as that. Put Blake out there with average players, and his flaws will be even more obvious and he won't do some mysterious, undefined magic that wil help his team unexplainably win more games.

What was Blake's win% his first season in Portland? What was in in Milwaukee? You want to condemn Miller for being a career 50% win% player, but he's had to play most of his career with inferior teammates, while Blake has benefitted by playing next to superstars.

You also need to understand more about how win% is calculated. Obviously, if you play on a team loaded with crappy teammates, you're going to have a poor win%. What was Kobe's win% in 2004-05 when the Lakers won 34 games and ended up in the lottery. It couldn't have been very high on a team with a 0.415 win%. Likewise, when you play in a great team, and get to play big minutes with the team's best players, you're going to have an artificially high win%. That doesn't mean you're a great player, it means you are benefitting from playing with superior teammates. A rising tide floats all boats.

Now do the same exercise and apply it to a large sample size. You will see that you are cherry picking data from a small sample size. Aren't you the guy that is upset about people using +/- single game stats? Yet, here you are doing the same...

Wrong, my beef with +/- is that people use it as a single player, single game stat to show player A sucks and player B is a star in the waiting who just needs more PT. That is an improper use that that stat.

We have a long, thick book on Andre Miller. 11 years worth. And it is not a good read. He is rarely a high win% guy.

Because he's rarely played on teams blessed with abundant talent. As stated above, given that the majority of the teams he's played on were lottery teams before he joined, a career 50% win% is pretty damn impressive. Add Blake to those same lottery teams and I don't think it's hard to imagine he'd have a career win% well below 50%.

BNM

 

[andalusian]

Because he's rarely played on teams blessed with abundant talent.

Like a LAC team with Brand, Magette, Odom, or a Denver team with 'Melo, Camby, Nene, Martin or a Philly team with Iggy, Brand, T-Young?

As stated above, given that the majority of the teams he's played on were lottery teams before he joined, a career 50% win% is pretty damn impressive. Add Blake to those same lottery teams and I don't think it's hard to imagine he'd have a career win% well below 50%.

All it shows you is that he is not the difference maker you make him to be. He is a good player that does not elevate teams to real greatness. It's that simple. Dude is not the great top-10 PG people try to envision him as. He is Zach Randolph as a PG. Great stats, no real impact.

I think I have pretty much said all I have to say about Andre Miller. You want to think it's never Andre's fault? His entire career is one poor Andre situation after another? Go for it. I think there is a reason his services were not requested by many teams, I think there is a reason he was option 4 or lower for Portland and I think there is a reason his career achievements are nothing to write home about. He is not as good as you think he is.

 

[BlazerWookee]

You are basing your entire argument on the misuse of a single stat - win%. It's a TEAM stat, not an individual stat. It's greatly influenced by who you play with and who you play against.

Who's a better player and helps the team win more, Steve Blake or Brandon Roy? If you only look at win%, Steve Blake should be an all-star and Brandon Roy should be benched. Blake's win% is 63.6% and Roy's is only 55.9%. Heck, Martell has a higher win% (58.8) than Roy. In fact, Roy has a lower win% than all of the following:

Blake
Aldridge
Outlaw
Oden
Webster
Bayless
Cunningham

Is Roy really our 8th best player? Is he the 8th most important in how many games the team wins? Of course not, because win% is not an individual player stat.

Why is Miller's win% lower than Blake's? Simple, look at some of the guys Miller has played the bulk of his minutes with - as a reserve earlier in the season:

Joel - 44.8
Rudy - 40.0

and as a starter now:

Howard - 37.0
Pendergraph - 20.0

It's actually Miller's win% is as high as it is, given that he almost never played with Oden (team "leading" 66.7 win%) , and rarely finishes games when Roy, Aldridge, Oden (prior to injury) and Outlaw (prior to injury) are on the court.

BNM

YOU DON'T POST THE WAY WE WANT TO POST!!!

<trying to keep a straight face>

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

Quick was just on Wheel's show and said it was a giant manlove fest between Andre and the media today...also said Nate apologized for letting it get so out of hand yesterday.

 

[Boob-No-More]

All it shows you is that he is not the difference maker you make him to be. He is a good player that does not elevate teams to real greatness. It's that simple. Dude is not the great top-10 PG people try to envision him as. He is Zach Randolph as a PG. Great stats, no real impact.

The Clippers were a lottery team before Andre Miller, they were a lottery team with Miller, they were a lottery team after Miller. Blaming him for failing with the Clippers is totally misguided. That team has much bigger problems - and they start at the top. The Nuggets were a lottery team before Miller, won 43 and them 49 games with him, and then 44 games the season they traded him for Iverson. In case you missed it (you seem bound and determined to ignore it), the 2006 76ers were 6-19 (0.240) before Miller and 29-28 (.510) with him. They more that doubled their winning percentage by adding Anre Miller to the team. Please explain how that's possible if he's "not a difference maker". 0.240 to 0.510 winning percentage seems like quite a difference to me.

I have never called Andre Miller a top-10 PG. I have called him above average and significantly better than this year's version of Steve Blake. You want to put down Miller for his lack of career success, but how many times has Steve Blake, with his "lofty" win% made the play-offs? How many times has he led his team past the 1st round. I'm not arguing that Andre Miller is a superstar PG. I'm arguing that he is now, and has always been, better than Steve Blake. As the better player, he deseves to start and finish games. If our coach can't figure out how to use Miller's talents in his one-dimensional offense, that's the coach's fault, not Miller's.

P.S. Last year the 76ers were 41-41 (0.500) with Andre Miller in spite of Elton Brand missing 53 games due to injury. This year, with a healthy Brand, and no Miller, and no other changes in their top 8 players, they are 10-24 (0.294). So, before Andre Miller they were 0.240 and one of the worst teams in the league, with Andre Miller, they were a 0.500 play-off team, and after Andre Miller they are 0.294 and the second worst team in the Eastern Conference. Still think Miller doesn't help his teams win? If so, please explain Philadelphia's big improvement when adding Miller and their big fall off after letting him go with essentially no other roster changes in either case.

BNM

 

[Nikolokolus]

P.S. Last year the 76ers were 41-41 (0.500) with Andre Miller in spite of Elton Brand missing 53 games due to injury. This year, with a healthy Brand, and no Miller, and no other changes in their top 8 players, they are 10-24 (0.294). So, before Andre Miller they were 0.240 and one of the worst teams in the league, with Andre Miller, they were a 0.500 play-off team, and after Andre Miller they are 0.294 and the second worst team in the Eastern Conference. Still think Miller doesn't help his teams win? If so, please explain Philadelphia's big improvement when adding Miller and their big fall off after letting him go with essentially no other roster changes in either case.

BNM

I'm sorry this is going to have to be revised. It utterly fails to comply with article 3 section B paragraph 8 of the "Putting up meaningless stats on a bad team" message board argument rulebook.

 

[Boob-No-More]

OK, here's the cliff notes version of my position on this issue:

I don't think Andre Miller is a great player, or a superstar, and I have never said he is. I think he is a good player, an above average starting PG, and a better player than this year's version of Steve Blake.

I don't think Andre Miller is a bad fit with this team. He is, however, a bad fit with this coach. Nate has jerked Miller around from the first day of training camp, started Blake (with an 8.3 PER at the time) over Miller (15.0 PER) for WEEKS after it was obvious Miller was the better player. I think Miller CAN successfully co-exist in the backcourt with Brandon Roy, and could be successful with this roster with a coach that is capable of devising a team oriented offense that revolves around more than running ISOs for one specific player. Nate is not that coach.

OK, I'm done. Beat LA!

BNM

 

[andalusian]

Please explain how that's possible if he's "not a difference maker". 0.240 to 0.510 winning percentage seems like quite a difference to me.

My original reference was:

Originally Posted by andalusian View Post
All it shows you is that he is not the difference maker you make him to be. He is a good player that does not elevate teams to real greatness.

if playing .500 ball is real greatness, we have a different definition of what real greatness is.

I'm not arguing that Andre Miller is a superstar PG. I'm arguing that he is now, and has always been, better than Steve Blake. As the better player, he deseves to start and finish games.

This is an absurd statement that does not regard fit. Last year, the Phoenix Suns had a dominant center that had a 22.3 PER. This year they replaced him with an average center that exhibit a 15.3 PER. Yet, magically, they play much better this year with the much lesser player. Individual play and team fit are not always correlating. How hard is this to understand?

If our coach can't figure out how to use Miller's talents in his one-dimensional offense, that's the coach's fault, not Miller's.

It is not the coach, nor Miller's fault. Some players just do not fit very well with each other. Miller's forte is in a fast break, run and gun system, with the ball in his hand and finishers at his disposal. Roy's is in a structured, half-court system with the ball in his hands and long-range shooters next to him. Using them together is going to put at least one of them at a disadvantage - and the coach needs to choose which one needs to sacrifice more.

Nash and Shaq did not mesh. Roy and Miller do not mesh. Nothing less, nothing more.

 

[Boob-No-More]

if playing .500 ball is real greatness, we have a different definition of what real greatness is.

It's a hell of a lot closer to "greatness" than 0.240 ball, which is what the 76ers were playing before Miller arrived and 0.294 ball, which is what they are playing now (with a healthy Elton Brand, no less) after he left. You have insisted over and over and over in this thead that Miller is a Zach Randolph type stat padder who does NOTHING to help his team win. His time in Philadelphia proves otherwise. You just won't admit it's true because it doesn't fit your incorrect image of Miller.

BNM

 

[Nikolokolus]

Wins Above Replacement Player. Based on performance and playing time, the wins a player has created as compared to a replacement-level player seeing the same minutes.

There is no doubt that Miller's individual performance is better than either JB and Blake. There is also no doubt that it is not translated to wins. I think this is an indication that WARP (or any other individual stat) does not always translate well to team wins. I think it is hard to argue about that in this case - and I think it is pretty clear that Andre Miller's 3 years and running being a 50% winner when on the floor on 2 different teams and 3 different coaches makes it pretty clear that something he does on the court is not as good as his individual stats are.

As far as I understand it (based on discussions I've read at APBRmetrics) this is Win% in a nutshell: A player is part of two rotations, in his first run his team outscores the opposition by +5 points, he goes to the bench, comes back in later in the game and his unit gets outscored by -3, his win% is .50% (one shift won and one shift lost), but the team is still +2 in the points column. Focusing so heavily on this one statisitc seems to be missing the larger picture.

If you want to really give Miller's impact on the court a thorough treatment then you need to look at much more than just Win%; look at his adjusted plus-minus, his PER differential with his opponent, his on/off court numbers and most importantly, has the team won more games or lost more games with him starting/playing a large role?

 

[MARIS61]

be careful what you wish for.... who exactly plays pg for us next year?

Sergio.

 

[ABM]

Sergio.

Actually, thus far, he's having a worse season with the Kings than he had with the Blazers last season.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Actually, thus far, he's having a worse season with the Kings than he had with the Blazers last season.

By what measure?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rodrise01.html
PER: 16
FG% 43%
3PT%: 37%

Sure his defense still sucks balls, but offensively he's having the best year of his career in Westphal's uptempo, open court system (not that I'd want him back by any means).

 

[ABM]

By what measure?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rodrise01.html
PER: 16
FG% 43%
3PT%: 37%

Sure his defense still sucks balls, but offensively he's having the best year of his career in Westphal's uptempo, open court system (not that I'd want him back by any means).

OK, I went quick-and-dirty, but, yeah, no real drop off this season. My bad.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4155

 

[andalusian]

As far as I understand it (based on discussions I've read at APBRmetrics) this is Win% in a nutshell: A player is part of two rotations, in his first run his team outscores the opposition by +5 points, he goes to the bench, comes back in later in the game and his unit gets outscored by -3, his win% is .50% (one shift won and one shift lost), but the team is still +2 in the points column. Focusing so heavily on this one statisitc seems to be missing the larger picture.

Given that 82Games.com give you W/L columns in addition to the win% number - it is unlikely that this the way the present the data, since the W/L values would be a lot higher than the number of games played (players get in an out of the game multiple times, especially heavy rotation players like Miller), and since it seems that the W/L values accumulate to the number of games played (or very close to it, which would explain games where the +/- comes to 0) - I doubt very much that this explanation is relevant to the numbers we are referring to - it just does not seem reasonable that it is given the raw data we see.

Even if you look at his individual PER through the years, you see that he was, only twice, at an early stage of his career - an all-star level player (20+ PER) - and given that he had it playing on rather bad teams - it leads one to think that this is a case of a good player on a crappy team who has some stats inflated.

My conclusion is the same - good player, better player individually than any other current active PG on the roster - but not the difference maker some proclaim him to be. I would call him a starter level player, even good starter level player - based on PER, but - there are plenty of those in the NBA.

I want to go back to the idea that somehow Nate is stunting him - if you look at his advanced stats, this year compared to last year - you will see that his Usage% is about the same, Ast% about the same, TOV% about the same, BLK%, Rebound% - same, same. The biggest difference is his TS%. And that is clearly an issue of fit. He is much more of a jump shooter because he plays less with the ball in is hand, for the obvious reason (Roy needs the ball in his hand).

I now go back to 82games.com and compare his shooting this year, compared to last year. He is shooting 10% more jump shots and 10% less close shots this year compared to last year - which basically confirms this suspicion. He is not as good a jump shooter as he is shooting close, the fit issue, playing in a system that is tailored around Roy - is the culprit, and the reason his PER this year is 15 instead of 18 as it was last year.

The funny thing is, that Roy has gone through the same "change" as Andre, he is adjusting to playing with Andre as well - and he plays less with the ball than he did last year - you can see it when you look at his jump-shot percent this year compared to last year, again - it went up - but since Roy is a much better jump shooter than Miller, his individual production has taken a smaller hit - which is good, because Roy is the more important player.

So - the system has been adjusted to incorporate Miller more, but is still more Roy centric than Miller centric, as it should be.

At the end of the day, basketball games "count" based on the win/loss columns. We have seen, through the years, that fantastic individual production (using any measure you want - PER, points, PER differential and the like) does not always correlate to team success - there has to be a different way to question one's fit and/or impact on wins. I have yet to see a better stat than Win% (with a large sample size, for sure) to measure this.

BNM (and others) showed, correctly, that Win% can be influenced by the players someone shares the court with (and against, I suspect) - but given a large enough sample size, and especially when you look at data from multiple years and multiple teams - I suspect it gives you a pretty decent idea about a player's impact on wins.

If Andre Miller really is a "top-10" PG as some people seem to think, his impact, through a rather long career with a lot of games played, would have translated to a higher win percentage, imho.